DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittu (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0225809) in view of Kim (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0145077).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, Vittu discloses (Figs.) an optical module for an encoder (intended use) comprising: a support (402) including a bottom wall part; a light receiving element (206) including a light receiving surface (208) and disposed on a surface of the bottom wall part with the light receiving surface facing a side opposite to the bottom wall part; an optical plate (220) including an input surface and an output surface and disposed on the light receiving element with the output surface facing the light receiving surface; a first resin member (222) disposed between the light receiving surface and the output surface and configured to bond the optical plate to the light receiving element; and a second resin member (224) disposed on the surface of the bottom wall part so as to be in contact with the light receiving element and the fiber optical plate, wherein a material for the first resin member and a material for the second resin member are different (first resin is for adhesion, the second resin is for encasing) from each other. Vittu also disclose (Figs. 4-8) first, second and third steps, a peripheral edge of the bottom wall part (402; Fig. 8) is exposed from the second resin member (802) as claimed. The second resin member is a hard member ([0054]). Vittu does not disclose a fiber optical plate including an input surface constituted by surfaces of one end of a plurality of optical fibers and an output surface constituted by surfaces of the other end of the plurality of optical fibers and disposed on the light receiving element with the output surface facing the light receiving surface. Kim teaches (Fig. 3) a similar device having a fiber optical plate (180) including an input surface constituted by surfaces of one end of a plurality of optical fibers and an output surface constituted by surfaces of the other end of the plurality of optical fibers and disposed on the light receiving element with the output surface facing the light receiving surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a fiber optical plate in the apparatus of Vittu in view of Kim to reduce crosstalk and improve imaging as taught, known and predictable. Since the same structure is disclosed by Vittu in view of Kim, it is an adhesive or die attach film.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittu in view of Kim, further in view of Van Arendonk et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0228512).
Regarding claim 2, Vittu in view of Kim disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Vittu discloses electrical connection with a through via. Vittu and Kim do not disclose an electrical connection with a wire bond. Van Arendonk et al. teach a similar device with a wire connection (109). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a wire connection in the apparatus of Vittu in view of Kim and Van Arendonk et al. for more cost-effective and to simplify manufacturing as known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878